Darrin said:
why are you soo obsessed with a 6-4 versus 5-5 split? There are soo many other issues to be thought through whether its technical, mental, physical, work-load requirements, injuries, selection, positional issues, coaching, captaincy, management styles, etc.
primarily because IMO a 5-5 split shortens you batting depth, limits your options tactically, and makes your balance critical..........it's little secret that I prefer a 6-4 at Test level..........
to my knowledge a 5-5 split is preferred in LO cricket for the simple reason that you need 5 bowlers to fulfill your bowling requirements.................be they 'specialists' or part timers.......
my concern with the current OD side is the same as that for the Test side - if we thought that the Astle, Styris, Macca, Cairns, Oram, McCullum & Vettori sequence was brittle in Test mode - why should it be any different in LO cricket???????????
IMO the ODI side has 7-8 bowling options - Bond, Vettori, Cairns & Oram are all 10 over bowlers, with Astle, Styris & Macca to make up another 10..............if we add another 'specialist' to the tail we then have 3 'specialists', 2 'allrounders', and 3 part timers........
bottom line IMO with so many 'part time' options we do not need another ' specialist' bowler, and thus can strengthen the batting ...........even if we add 2 batsmen to the lineup (replacing Macca) we still have enough options with the ball in 6................and have a 6-4 split...............
just to really set the cat amongst the pigeons - IMO when we find 2 'strike' bowlers I'd be looking at changing the batting further - or at least putting more pressure upon them.........
I realise that they are in different roles but IMO Astle & Styris (&Macca) are the same sort of player, as are Cairns & Oram (we do not need 2 same type 'allrounders')........too many same type players in the side - esp if we maintain a 5-5 split.........
and don't start me speculating on changing the batting order...............